Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

William Seger

(11,262 posts)
19. So you have no actual rebuttal?
Tue Sep 9, 2014, 12:07 AM
Sep 2014

Last edited Tue Sep 9, 2014, 10:55 AM - Edit history (1)

You're obviously looking for another excuse to avoid logically analyzing the facts, but I'll answer your question anyway.

After 2 years of general engineering at Virginia Tech (in which physics and chemistry were required), I dropped out to play bass for a band and smoke weed. When that fell apart, I worked for five years as a structural draftsman in an A&E firm, eventually going back to school part time to get a computer science degree. I then worked for over 35 years as a software engineer. (And, by the way, that alone makes me qualified to sign Gage's petition since he thinks even sanitation engineers and landscape architects are qualified to have an expert opinion about structural mechanics and physics, but in my case, I actually know some things about structural mechanics and physics.)

Also, I have over 40 years experience investigating claims made by pseudo-scientists, beginning with testing "pyramid power" and "biorythm" claims in the 70s. My interest in that hobby got started because I fell for a lot of nonsense back in the 60s and early 70s -- whatever else you say about it, that era produced an extraordinary amount of bullshit like ancient astronauts and Bermuda triangles, not to mention JFK conspiracism -- until I figured out that just about anybody can publish a book making all sorts of absurd claims that can't withstand scrutiny. (I dunno, maybe stopping smoking weed was a factor, too.) With the Internet, it's even easier -- even mentally ill people can put up a page or YouTube video, and some people will fall for anything they claim.

I still find that hobby interesting because in the process of looking into the claims for myself, instead of gullibly believing every sensational thing I read just because it was sensational, I've learned a heck of a lot about a lot of different things. 9/11 conspiracism incorporates an unusually wide variety of fields, but since there are also an unusually large number of qualified people pointing out exactly what's wrong with the evidence and arguments offered by the "truth movement," I've learned a lot and I'm still learning. You seem to pick who to believe and who not to believe based solely on their conclusions; I pick my experts based on who can make the best fact-based, logical arguments. Sometimes, that's hard to do, but in this case it's very easy. With the "truth movement experts" that Gage parades in this video series, it's really no contest, especially when it comes to the perfectly idiotic notion of magical silent explosives bringing down the towers. (To his credit, at least Grainger didn't go so far as to actually claim that, but then he doesn't offer any other alternative, either, so it appears that he would like for you jump to that conclusion yourself.)

According to the logic of Gage's "experts," if it looked like a CD then it must have been a CD, and if it never happened before then it can't be true, and if the NIST hypothesis of thermal expansion of a girder at column 79 is wrong then the only other explanation is CD. All of these arguments are an insult to the very concept of logic, regardless of the credentials of the people making them, and no engineering degree is required to see that. The NIST hypothesis of thermal expansion may or may not be correct -- no cameras inside the building to verify it -- but we can say with 100% certainty that explosives did not bring down WTC7 or the towers. We can say that because with 100% certainty, there are no magical silent explosives. We can also rule out thermite (a conjecture invented, not because of any credible evidence, but for the sole purpose of keeping CD delusions alive despite the impossibility of silent explosives), because there is no plausible way that thermite melting could be timed to cut through all the columns at nearly the same time. (And that's even if it's actually possible to cut through that much steel with any practical thermite device, which has never been demonstrated. Don't you find it remarkably how successful that claimed technology was on the first try?) Here's the kicker: In his presentations, Gage tries to have it both ways, claiming explosives when he's talking about "sudden onset" but then switching to thermite when he feels compelled to explain why there were no RDX sounds on any of the videos, or seismic signatures, or broken windows for blocks -- nothing anywhere close to what that much explosives would have produced. Apparently, "truthers" don't have any problem with that cognitive dissonance, but I sure do.

It's a shame that Gage has led so many people down the blind alley of thinking WTC7 was going to crack the conspiracy case wide open, but the number of signatures he collects based on his distorted and disingenuous presentations is utterly irrelevant, because it just doesn't matter that they simply refuse to see what's wrong with the CD hypothesis. What matters is that Gage's "experts" have yet to produce the first valid technical argument that concludes it was a CD.

But here's why you can't defend Grainger's arguments: He doesn't actually make any arguments of any significance; he just confidently makes many dubious and unsupported assertions. I'm sorry, but if Grainger doesn't even understand progressive collapse, then I'm not at all interested in his credentials. If he can't tell me what should have prevented complete collapse, then I'm not interested in his "professional opinion" that it couldn't happen. To me, it's perfectly plausible that it happened because the interior connections were shear connections, designed for gravity loads only, which means that when a beam or girder fell on one end, there was nothing substantial to prevent the moment force from breaking the few bolts holding the other end in place on its seat. Then when that column lost enough lateral restraint, it would buckle, too. Starting with the columns under the east penthouse, that apparently happened inside the building for well over 6 seconds before the exterior shell began to fall. But Gage's "experts" apparently have no explanation for that so they just ignore it. That's not the way to convince me that you know what you're talking about.

All of Gage's "experts" claim that the collapse into free-fall was too sudden to be explained by a progressive collapse, and most even claim that the free-fall can't be explained without explosives. But as a prime example of the dearth of facts and logic behind it, that claim is completely dependent on completely ignoring the time between the penthouse collapse and the shell collapse, and importantly, completely ignoring the 1.75 seconds, 7-foot fall of the shell before it went into free-fall. Gage's "experts" don't seem to understand what that 7 feet means, but here's a diagram drawn to scale of how much buckling could occur in 8 floors of unrestrained columns by the time the top descended 7 feet:



The columns were not continuous pieces of steel. They were made from 2-story-tall sections bolted together. If a column started buckling after losing lateral restraint over 8 floors, the buckling forces would quickly localize to those weaker points and break them. How much resistance do you expect from a broken column? (Hint: no differential equations are required to answer, even though Gage's "experts" can't seem to figure it out.)

AE911Truth "experts" have never offered a CD hypothesis that actually explains the known facts, so they just ignore any inconvenient facts that get in their way and falsely claim the building went into free-fall instantaneously. That is what should be expected from a CD but that's just not what happened with WTC7. Why not?

And yet, you find their failed arguments to be so compelling that you're willing to convince yourself that magical silent explosives exist. As a semi-professional Internet psychiatrist, I find that to be fascinating.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Compelling - However, We Will Never Know The Truth cantbeserious Sep 2014 #1
we already know the truth. n/t wildbilln864 Sep 2014 #2
We Know The Reality Of Building Mechanics - We Don't Know The Truth Behind 9-11 cantbeserious Sep 2014 #3
"We Know The Reality Of Building Mechanics?" We who? William Seger Sep 2014 #9
Your Point Is Lost On Me cantbeserious Sep 2014 #10
Really? It's pretty simple William Seger Sep 2014 #11
what do you do for a living Seger? wildbilln864 Sep 2014 #12
I was recently promoted to Professional Senior Citizen William Seger Sep 2014 #16
lol, that's funny. wildbilln864 Sep 2014 #17
So you have no actual rebuttal? William Seger Sep 2014 #19
Ahh... biorhythms jberryhill Sep 2014 #20
My god! I went through a septuple critical period last week William Seger Sep 2014 #21
soyou think you know more tha strucural engineers with 30 to 40 years experience.... wildbilln864 Sep 2014 #22
Great rebuttal! zappaman Sep 2014 #23
a plethora of words... wildbilln864 Sep 2014 #24
I'm a frequent reader here, but first time poster ballabosh Nov 2014 #27
Doesn't matter what they allow or don't allow nationalize the fed Sep 2014 #4
Many Will Be Dead Well Before A Century Transpires - Won't Matter For Them cantbeserious Sep 2014 #6
sad but true. n/t wildbilln864 Dec 2014 #28
La, la, la, la. Alkene Sep 2014 #5
mmmmmmmm, k. n/t wildbilln864 Sep 2014 #8
13 years of lies and failure celebrated with recycled video of failed claims superbeachnut Sep 2014 #7
I've known Grainger is a member of AE911Truth for a while. AZCat Sep 2014 #13
thanks for your feedback. n/t wildbilln864 Sep 2014 #14
roflmaO archaic56 Sep 2014 #15
This message was self-deleted by its author wildbilln864 Nov 2014 #25
Scott Grainger, FPE - Failed Fire Protection Engineer mocks 911 victims with dumbed down opinions superbeachnut Sep 2014 #18
The terrorists had MAGIC FIRE gyroscope Nov 2014 #26
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»Scott Grainger, FPE - Fir...»Reply #19